Complex Fourier Series: Uncovering the Mystery of Different Results for x^2

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the complex Fourier series representation of the function f(x) = x^2 over the interval -π to π. Participants explore the discrepancies in results obtained from different methods of calculation, specifically focusing on integration by parts and the implications of symmetry in the integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an initial calculation of the Fourier coefficients using integration by parts, leading to a result that includes sinh(in π), which equals zero, suggesting an error in the approach.
  • The same participant later describes a second method that splits the complex exponential into cosine and sine components, resulting in a valid Fourier series representation.
  • Another participant requests to see the working for the first method to understand the discrepancies better.
  • The original poster acknowledges a working error in their first calculation, indicating that both methods ultimately yield the same correct result.
  • There is a discussion about the ability to edit or delete posts, reflecting a concern about the clarity and organization of the thread.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the second method is correct, while the first method initially led to confusion due to an error in calculation. However, the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the different approaches and their interpretations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the initial working, particularly the dependence on the properties of the integrals and the handling of the complex exponential terms. The resolution of discrepancies is based on the recognition of a calculation error rather than a fundamental disagreement on the methods themselves.

TehAdzMan
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello,

First post. I will attempt to use latex, something that involves me jabbing my keyboard with a pen since my \ key is missing.

We have an assignment question which I have solved, but there is a deeper issue I don't understand.

We are asked to find the complex Fourier series representation of

[tex]f(x) = x^2, \ -\pi < x < \pi, \ f(x+2\pi) = f(x)[/tex]

Initially I did the working, used integration by parts twice, and got the result

[tex]f(x) \sim \sum \sinh (in\pi)(\frac{\pi^2 n^2 + 2\pi in+2}{\pi i n^3})e^{-inx})[/tex]
summed for n between negative infinity to infinity.

This is obviously incorrect because [itex]\sinh (in\pi) = 0[/itex].

I received a tip off about how to go about solving the question, and early in the working I split the complex exponential term into its cos and isin terms.
Because the region of integration is symmetric and [itex]x^2 \times i\sin(nx)[/itex]
is odd, this term becomes 0 and the complex coefficients become real, the working proceeds and I get the correct answer which is
[tex]f(x) \sim \frac{\pi^2}{3} + 2\sum \frac{(-1)^n}{n^2} e^{-inx}[/tex]

where the sum is over all infinity again, except n = 0 which was worked out separately.

I've omitted the working because it took so long just to do that, but if I need to I can show it.

I'm pretty sure the working in both cases is right.
What I don't understand is how they come to different answers, excluding for n = 0, which we work out separately, and is the same in either case.
The first way comes up with a sum of 0s, unless I've done something wrong.

I could understand if the first method returned an undefined answer.
Then it is just undefined and we have to try something else to get a defined answer.
But in both cases (excluding n = 0 obviously), the sums are well defined as far as I can tell.

Why are they different? Have I just done something wrong in the working or is there something I don't understand happening?

Adam.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey TehAdzMan.

Can you show us the working for the first problem?
 
Thanks for replying.

Ok so here is the working for the first, incorrect part.

[tex]f(x) \sim \sum^{\infty}_{n = -\infty} C_n e^{-inx}, \ where \ C_n = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int^{\pi}_{-\pi} x^2 e^{inx} dx \\[/tex]

Proceeding to calculate Cn using integration by parts

[tex] <br /> C_n = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \{ \left[ \frac {x^2 e^{inx}}{in} \right]^{\pi}_{-\pi} - \int^{\pi}_{-\pi} \frac {2xe^{inx}}{in} dx \} \\<br /> [/tex]

and a second application of integration by parts

[tex] <br /> = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \{ \frac{\pi^2 e^{in \pi} - \pi^2 e^{-in \pi}}{in} - \frac{2}{in} \left[ \left[ \frac {xe^{inx}}{in} \right]^{\pi}_{-\pi} - \int^{\pi}_{ -\pi} \frac{e^{inx}}{in} dx \right] \} \\<br /> <br /> = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \{ \frac{\pi^2}{in} (e^{in \pi} - e^{-in \pi}) - \frac{2}{in} \left[ \frac{\pi e^{in \pi}}{in} + \frac{\pi e^{-in \pi}}{in} - \left[ \frac {e^{inx}}{i^2 n^2} \right]^{\pi}_{-\pi} \right] \} \\<br /> <br /> = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \{ \frac{2 \pi^2}{in} \sinh (in \pi) - \frac{4 \pi}{i^2 n^2} \sinh (in \pi) - \frac{2}{i^3 n^3} (e^{in \pi} - e^{-in \pi}) \}[/tex]

which, with some arrangement gives

[tex]C_n = \sinh (in\pi)(\frac{\pi^2 n^2 + 2\pi in+2}{\pi i n^3})[/tex]

So basically sinh(in pi) is coming out at every step, which = 0.

The correct calculation just involves splitting the complex exponential up into cos and i sin, getting rid of the i sin for the aforementioned reason, and proceeding in a very similar fashion, using integration by parts twice.

Is something wrong in that working?
 
Ok there was a working error. My bad.
It turns out it is the same.

I learned latex tho so that's good.
I'm trying to work out how to delete this or mark it as DONT READ or something now.
 
Why can I only edit my last post? Can I change the thread name etc?
Can I delete the post to rid this forum of a useless post?
I looked for this info but couldn't find it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K